Workers want pay boost

[Disneydreamer23]

Possibly elsewhere in rural FL but certainly not anywhere within a reasonable drive to working at the world. I recently hired a new employee who relocated from Port St Lucie in FL ( close to Ft Lauderdale) and when doing comparisons in cost of living during salary negotiations the difference between there and where we are which is a suburb of Philadelphia the cost of living difference was negligible. Houses here typically go from $1800/month on up...I am sure that is not realistic on Disney pay rates.

Not at all, at least not in this area. Maybe if you go out about a half hour to the west or south, but even heading back east into main Orlando you really don't see a decrease in the overall cost situation between time/tolls/gas increases. Sure, someone working at Disney that also has a car could maybe find a decent apartment/house out around the 417 loop beyond the Lake Nona area that comes in a few hundred cheaper than the average rent within a 15-20 minute radius of the World, but then you start looking at not only longer commute times, public transit irregularities, but also the two biggest financial hits that likely make it just as expensive to live out there; tolls and gas. If you drive beyond the airport exit on 417 to Lake Nona and beyond, you're close to or over $3 in tolls each way. Just that amount in tolls over, say, 20 work days is $120 for the month. Add in any gas increase, and you're looking at breaking even on the monthly costs, really.

Ya learn some thing new every day thanks for the Info!

 

[slappy magoo]

Why is this so difficult for you? You either have an idea of what a living wage supports or you just think it sounds good.

Why is this so difficult for me? Honestly? Because a: I don't like to brag and b: it's the internet, who'd believe me? But I make by most people's standards a really good living, and at the same time so many of my hours are consumed at work that my wife does all of the finances. I couldn't tell you what my last paycheck was but from what I read on the news it's probably bigger than what at least 95% of Americans earned in the same 2-week period. So I have no idea what a living wage is for most people.

But if it had to be hypothetically evaluated to make you, a stranger on the internet, feel better, fine. Were I king of 'Murka, I'd have economists consult with real estate agents in the bigger cities to evaluate what the average rent is on a 2-bedroom apartment not in a luxury high-rise, standard decent housing for standard decent 'Murkans (and I'd choose the bigger cities because the cost of living might be higher, but I'd operate under the assumption that people who live in suburban or rural areas, where rent is lower, probably need to own/insure/maintain/gas up a car, because most places in America not in major cities has sparse public transit). I'd have those economists consult with utility companies to estimate what the average family of four in a 2-bedroom apartment consumes in power, water, heat. I'd have the consult with grocery stores in those cities to figure out what it costs an average family of four to eat 3 squares. Consult with stores to estimate average clothing prices. Consult with phone/cable/internet companies to estimate basic phone needs and basic internet needs (because again, unlike you, I think internet might be even more important when you're broke because it gives you instant access to info on who's hiring where). How much health insurance will be for people who aren't getting it through work, and how much it would be for people in states that didn't accept increases in Medicare funding. I may be forgetting stuff but that's why I'm hiring those economists at top dollar and making guys like you pay for it direct from your taxes (seriously, there'll be an itemization JUST on the paychecks of guys like you to pay for this study). Once the average for families of four across these various cities is compiled, I'd add 20% to that average (because the average assumes roughly half of people might need more than the average) and say "There. That's what an individual needs to make to support a family of four."

I'd then have those economists estimate what that cost would be 7 years from now.

I'd then work with those economists to present that case to Congress (I may be the king of 'Murka, but I'm not a dictator, for crying out loud!) as a means to raise the minimum wage to be at least that, and I'd also work with those economists with state Senates where the cost of living was higher than that to raise the wage beyond that average. And I'd try to make that happen gradually over the course of seven years (with the increase as expected by the economists being the goal) and tie it to cost of living increases going forward

Yeah, I know - a minimum wage isn't supposed to be enough to RETIRE, it's supposed to be a starter wage. To which I say, it's not enough to retire, it's enough to live on, stop trying to compare the two.

Yeah, I know - but...buh-buh-buh-but...if you're a regular family of four, why can't you make that an income for both parents working? That's more fair! To which I say, the same people always griping over how much people should get paid are also always griping over the erosion of the American family. Why WOULDN'T you want a world where one person can make enough for their family and one person can raise the kids you claim you care about so much? Furthermore, who's to say that family of four is a husband and wife? Could be a single parent and three kids, or two kids and a disabled relative, or one kid and TWO disabled relatives. And if you have a two parent household where both parents do work, great, they're the ones with the discretionary income necessary to keep your local restaurants open, buying new cars, the premium cable package, the vacations to destinations with economies that rely on tourist dollars. The CEOs who'll have to shell out that extra income will eventually get it back with more robust economy.

Yeah, I know...BUT...BUH-BUH-BUH-BUH (eye twitch, mouth foam, uncontrollable gas passing), The nation can't handle that kind of drastic change to its economy! Businesses will rebel! Small businesses will go under. To which I say, that sucks but it's something we, as a nation, and the 1% in particular should have thought about decades ago as the income disparity twixt upper and lower income brackets started getting farther apart. I'm giving you seven years to make it happen. We now have plenty of evidence that most areas where the minimum wage is raised above the national doesn't have chronic unemployment, doesn't wind up losing businesses looking for cheaper labor elsewhere in the country, and more robust local economies compared to nearby states or towns where the wage hasn't been raised. We've tried trickle down economies. We've tried having a Congress that ignores the regulations nominally put in place to protect and control businesses from damaging the dollar or the environment. Let's give "human dignity for all" a shot. I'm game. But then again my opinion is a bit biased. And if I'm wrong, hey I'll be over thrown by the cult of John Galt and my head put on a pike for the wage slaves to be reminded what happens when people give a crap about them.

Go ahead, spew away. I'm going to take a nap. I've earned it.

 

[jaklgreen]

Additionally, simply raising wages puts more money into circulation without increasing the availability of goods and services which results in inflation. While some may argue that there is little to no inflation, one just needs to visit the grocery store.

I am not sure where you have been the last 20 years or if you are not old enough to have realized what is going on. But inflation has happened! Cost of living has sky rocketed, the only thing that has not gone up is wages. Not just in the fast food industry but others as well. 20 years ago when people my age were starting out we were able to work full time and go to school part time. Some of my friends became teachers and their starting salaries were around $30,000. My SIL just started a teaching job this year, starting wages are exactly the same as they were 15 years ago. Same with my job, I used to decorate cakes at a local grocery store and started at $12/hour. I do not do that anymore but was talking to a young co worker who was doing the same job that I was doing 20 years ago, decorating cakes and she said they now work for $7/hour. And we all know the price of everything has gone up. Gas was 89cents a gallon 18 years ago, what is it now? The same exact apartment that I lived in and paid $285/month for is now going for $600(the same one!). Now tell me how salaries have stayed consistent with the cost of living. I truly do not understand how some people can possibly feel that the minimum wage is not set too low. Even if you were single with no kids you would not be able to afford to live off of minimum wage. It does not even cover rent/utilities and food let alone any "extras". There is no excuse for any company who has 1 employee(CEO) that makes millions a year just for themselves to not pay their employees a decent wage. PERIOD

 

[flynnibus]

An individuals lifestyle is completely up to that person; It isn't anybody else's business, and certainly we shouldn't be trying to define a minimum lifestyle by which people should be able to live (on a minimum wage). Rather, the question is whether a worker may support themselves at a basic level (without public support) earning the prevailing minimum wage

You are just word dancing here... you say we shouldn't define a 'minimum', yet you think we can define a 'basic'.. what's the difference? In both cases you need to define a standard of living you want people to have... otherwise how on earth can you calculate what they need to earn.. and hence what you suggest they be paid?

To evaluate if a wage is 'livable' you must define what you believe to be a sustainable target lifestyle.

 

[flynnibus]

Why is this so difficult for me? Honestly? Because a: I don't like to brag and b: it's the internet, who'd believe me? But I make by most people's standards a really good living, and at the same time so many of my hours are consumed at work that my wife does all of the finances. I couldn't tell you what my last paycheck was but from what I read on the news it's probably bigger than what at least 95% of Americans earned in the same 2-week period. So I have no idea what a living wage is for most people.

But if it had to be hypothetically evaluated to make you, a stranger on the internet, feel better, fine. Were I king of 'Murka, I'd have economists consult with real estate agents in the bigger cities to evaluate what the average rent is on a 2-bedroom apartment not in a luxury high-rise, standard decent housing for standard decent 'Murkans (and I'd choose the bigger cities because the cost of living might be higher, but I'd operate under the assumption that people who live in suburban or rural areas, where rent is lower, probably need to own/insure/maintain/gas up a car, because most places in America not in major cities has sparse public transit). I'd have those economists consult with utility companies to estimate what the average family of four in a 2-bedroom apartment consumes in power, water, heat. I'd have the consult with grocery stores in those cities to figure out what it costs an average family of four to eat 3 squares. Consult with stores to estimate average clothing prices. Consult with phone/cable/internet companies to estimate basic phone needs and basic internet needs (because again, unlike you, I think internet might be even more important when you're broke because it gives you instant access to info on who's hiring where). How much health insurance will be for people who aren't getting it through work, and how much it would be for people in states that didn't accept increases in Medicare funding. I may be forgetting stuff but that's why I'm hiring those economists at top dollar and making guys like you pay for it direct from your taxes (seriously, there'll be an itemization JUST on the paychecks of guys like you to pay for this study). Once the average for families of four across these various cities is compiled, I'd add 20% to that average (because the average assumes roughly half of people might need more than the average) and say "There. That's what an individual needs to make to support a family of four."

I'd then have those economists estimate what that cost would be 7 years from now.

I'd then work with those economists to present that case to Congress (I may be the king of 'Murka, but I'm not a dictator, for crying out loud!) as a means to raise the minimum wage to be at least that, and I'd also work with those economists with state Senates where the cost of living was higher than that to raise the wage beyond that average. And I'd try to make that happen gradually over the course of seven years (with the increase as expected by the economists being the goal) and tie it to cost of living increases going forward

Yeah, I know - a minimum wage isn't supposed to be enough to RETIRE, it's supposed to be a starter wage. To which I say, it's not enough to retire, it's enough to live on, stop trying to compare the two.

Yeah, I know - but...buh-buh-buh-but...if you're a regular family of four, why can't you make that an income for both parents working? That's more fair! To which I say, the same people always griping over how much people should get paid are also always griping over the erosion of the American family. Why WOULDN'T you want a world where one person can make enough for their family and one person can raise the kids you claim you care about so much? Furthermore, who's to say that family of four is a husband and wife? Could be a single parent and three kids, or two kids and a disabled relative, or one kid and TWO disabled relatives. And if you have a two parent household where both parents do work, great, they're the ones with the discretionary income necessary to keep your local restaurants open, buying new cars, the premium cable package, the vacations to destinations with economies that rely on tourist dollars. The CEOs who'll have to shell out that extra income will eventually get it back with more robust economy.

Yeah, I know...BUT...BUH-BUH-BUH-BUH (eye twitch, mouth foam, uncontrollable gas passing), The nation can't handle that kind of drastic change to its economy! Businesses will rebel! Small businesses will go under. To which I say, that sucks but it's something we, as a nation, and the 1% in particular should have thought about decades ago as the income disparity twixt upper and lower income brackets started getting farther apart. I'm giving you seven years to make it happen. We now have plenty of evidence that most areas where the minimum wage is raised above the national doesn't have chronic unemployment, doesn't wind up losing businesses looking for cheaper labor elsewhere in the country, and more robust local economies compared to nearby states or towns where the wage hasn't been raised. We've tried trickle down economies. We've tried having a Congress that ignores the regulations nominally put in place to protect and control businesses from damaging the dollar or the environment. Let's give "human dignity for all" a shot. I'm game. But then again my opinion is a bit biased. And if I'm wrong, hey I'll be over thrown by the cult of John Galt and my head put on a pike for the wage slaves to be reminded what happens when people give a crap about them.

Go ahead, spew away. I'm going to take a nap. I've earned it.

Ok, now you have to define which jobs are worthy of 'livable wages'

Are you going to pay the guy who twirls the sign on the corner of the road a livable wage?
What about the guy who towel dries the car at the car wash?
What about the bagger at the grocery store?
What about the valet parking attendant?

You probably just put every one of those people out of work.

 

[GoofGoof]

Ok, now you have to define which jobs are worthy of 'livable wages'

Are you going to pay the guy who twirls the sign on the corner of the road a livable wage?
What about the guy who towel dries the car at the car wash?
What about the bagger at the grocery store?
What about the valet parking attendant?

You probably just put every one of those people out of work.

If the guy wears a costume of some sort I believe he deserves a livable wage. If not, then no.

 

[slappy magoo]

Ok, now you have to define which jobs are worthy of 'livable wages'

Are you going to pay the guy who twirls the sign on the corner of the road a livable wage?
What about the guy who towel dries the car at the car wash?
What about the bagger at the grocery store?
What about the valet parking attendant?

You probably just put every one of those people out of work.

I'd say they deserve the hourly equivalent. And I put them out of work at a job that doesn't pay them enough to live on, but by getting fired, it only increases the burden on other taxpayers, so unless the employers are idiots who want to crash the economy out of spite, they're going to try to figure out how to pay their employees what they need, and they've got seven years to do it. So great social experiment. As I've written before, if your success as a business owner or CEO is based on "how can I pay my employees so little the government has to pay them extra so I don't have to" then you're doing capitalism wrong. Or rather, America is for some reason allowing you to do capitalism wrong.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think the middle ground is to accept that wage policy is an ineffective tool that requires far too many value judgements of people's personal lives. We can have a bigger impact by focusing on the issues wage policy is supposed to overcome. Wage policy is looking at the wrong side of the equation. Paying people more so they can afford an apartment is meaningless if the supply of such apartments is insufficient. All raising wages would do is increase demand, driving up rent. Even with rent control, there is still a finite supply. Wages don't get grocery stores built. Or streets that are safe to walk. Education seems to be a HUGE factor regarding future socio-economic position. And while the socio-economic position of parents is a big influence on education, manipulating numbers will do little to change that position. The entitlement nature of our general culture also needs to be addressed. That's not everything that contributes to poverty, but it would be a start meaningful change and not a momentary fix that fails to properly deal with its own consequences.

I would agree with this in theory, but I still think minimum wage needs to go up significantly too.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why is this so difficult for me? Honestly? Because a: I don't like to brag and b: it's the internet, who'd believe me? But I make by most people's standards a really good living, and at the same time so many of my hours are consumed at work that my wife does all of the finances. I couldn't tell you what my last paycheck was but from what I read on the news it's probably bigger than what at least 95% of Americans earned in the same 2-week period. So I have no idea what a living wage is for most people.

But if it had to be hypothetically evaluated to make you, a stranger on the internet, feel better, fine. Were I king of 'Murka, I'd have economists consult with real estate agents in the bigger cities to evaluate what the average rent is on a 2-bedroom apartment not in a luxury high-rise, standard decent housing for standard decent 'Murkans (and I'd choose the bigger cities because the cost of living might be higher, but I'd operate under the assumption that people who live in suburban or rural areas, where rent is lower, probably need to own/insure/maintain/gas up a car, because most places in America not in major cities has sparse public transit). I'd have those economists consult with utility companies to estimate what the average family of four in a 2-bedroom apartment consumes in power, water, heat. I'd have the consult with grocery stores in those cities to figure out what it costs an average family of four to eat 3 squares. Consult with stores to estimate average clothing prices. Consult with phone/cable/internet companies to estimate basic phone needs and basic internet needs (because again, unlike you, I think internet might be even more important when you're broke because it gives you instant access to info on who's hiring where). How much health insurance will be for people who aren't getting it through work, and how much it would be for people in states that didn't accept increases in Medicare funding. I may be forgetting stuff but that's why I'm hiring those economists at top dollar and making guys like you pay for it direct from your taxes (seriously, there'll be an itemization JUST on the paychecks of guys like you to pay for this study). Once the average for families of four across these various cities is compiled, I'd add 20% to that average (because the average assumes roughly half of people might need more than the average) and say "There. That's what an individual needs to make to support a family of four."

I'd then have those economists estimate what that cost would be 7 years from now.

I'd then work with those economists to present that case to Congress (I may be the king of 'Murka, but I'm not a dictator, for crying out loud!) as a means to raise the minimum wage to be at least that, and I'd also work with those economists with state Senates where the cost of living was higher than that to raise the wage beyond that average. And I'd try to make that happen gradually over the course of seven years (with the increase as expected by the economists being the goal) and tie it to cost of living increases going forward

Yeah, I know - a minimum wage isn't supposed to be enough to RETIRE, it's supposed to be a starter wage. To which I say, it's not enough to retire, it's enough to live on, stop trying to compare the two.

Yeah, I know - but...buh-buh-buh-but...if you're a regular family of four, why can't you make that an income for both parents working? That's more fair! To which I say, the same people always griping over how much people should get paid are also always griping over the erosion of the American family. Why WOULDN'T you want a world where one person can make enough for their family and one person can raise the kids you claim you care about so much? Furthermore, who's to say that family of four is a husband and wife? Could be a single parent and three kids, or two kids and a disabled relative, or one kid and TWO disabled relatives. And if you have a two parent household where both parents do work, great, they're the ones with the discretionary income necessary to keep your local restaurants open, buying new cars, the premium cable package, the vacations to destinations with economies that rely on tourist dollars. The CEOs who'll have to shell out that extra income will eventually get it back with more robust economy.

Yeah, I know...BUT...BUH-BUH-BUH-BUH (eye twitch, mouth foam, uncontrollable gas passing), The nation can't handle that kind of drastic change to its economy! Businesses will rebel! Small businesses will go under. To which I say, that sucks but it's something we, as a nation, and the 1% in particular should have thought about decades ago as the income disparity twixt upper and lower income brackets started getting farther apart. I'm giving you seven years to make it happen. We now have plenty of evidence that most areas where the minimum wage is raised above the national doesn't have chronic unemployment, doesn't wind up losing businesses looking for cheaper labor elsewhere in the country, and more robust local economies compared to nearby states or towns where the wage hasn't been raised. We've tried trickle down economies. We've tried having a Congress that ignores the regulations nominally put in place to protect and control businesses from damaging the dollar or the environment. Let's give "human dignity for all" a shot. I'm game. But then again my opinion is a bit biased. And if I'm wrong, hey I'll be over thrown by the cult of John Galt and my head put on a pike for the wage slaves to be reminded what happens when people give a crap about them.

Go ahead, spew away. I'm going to take a nap. I've earned it.

You probably could have made that a lot shorter if you were not so intent on being snide and arguing against points not made so you can play high and mighty. Listing items like single earner in a family of four, living in a two bedroom apartment with water, power and phone service would have sufficed.

You’re entire premise is still too dependent on certain variables somehow remaining constant or dramatically jumping. None of the cities or states with higher minimum wages are at the level you describe. Even the new federal contractor minimum of $10.10/hour (highest state level is $9.32 in Washington) would probably still need to be at least doubled to reach your standards. You say suck it to the small businesses that go under (still assuming they can afford these wages), but say nothing about where the new jobs will open up for them. Or how people will spend more to support this wage. You can’t just say the 1% will bear the cost because they cannot be compelled to do so otherwise you’re just back at the sort of assistance programs you want to avoid being regularly used.

 

[flynnibus]

I'd say they deserve the hourly equivalent. And I put them out of work at a job that doesn't pay them enough to live on, but by getting fired, it only increases the burden on other taxpayers, so unless the employers are idiots who want to crash the economy out of spite, they're going to try to figure out how to pay their employees what they need, and they've got seven years to do it

As if.. the employer just needs to will the money to appear... that is all right? They can just do whatever they want and their revenues are guaranteed to follow.

The reality of what will happen is by creating such a high payscale you would make many types of low-skill jobs unsustainable and employers would have to get rid of those roles.

Sorry, you want help carrying that out to your car? Sorry, we don't do that anymore. You want someone to actually ring you up vs making you do it via self-service checkout? Sorry, we don't do that anymore.

 

[GoofGoof]

As if.. the employer just needs to will the money to appear... that is all right? They can just do whatever they want and their revenues are guaranteed to follow.

The reality of what will happen is by creating such a high payscale you would make many types of low-skill jobs unsustainable and employers would have to get rid of those roles.

Sorry, you want help carrying that out to your car? Sorry, we don't do that anymore. You want someone to actually ring you up vs making you do it via self-service checkout? Sorry, we don't do that anymore.

I'd have to pump my own gas when I'm in NJ. I'd actually be OK with that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'd say they deserve the hourly equivalent. And I put them out of work at a job that doesn't pay them enough to live on, but by getting fired, it only increases the burden on other taxpayers, so unless the employers are idiots who want to crash the economy out of spite, they're going to try to figure out how to pay their employees what they need, and they've got seven years to do it. So great social experiment. As I've written before, if your success as a business owner or CEO is based on "how can I pay my employees so little the government has to pay them extra so I don't have to" then you're doing capitalism wrong. Or rather, America is for some reason allowing you to do capitalism wrong.

Anyway, what are you worried about? You honestly think Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and John Boehner are trolling WDW fan sites, reading this, get an epiphany and paste a link to Obama with the one word reply: "This."?

You really think the independent tax accountant can afford to pay something like $20/hour? That's about what a car wash with hand dry costs in my area right now, so that business has gone under along with its jobs.

 

[slappy magoo]

You probably could have made that a lot shorter if you were not so intent on being snide and arguing against points not made so you can play high and mighty. Listing items like single earner in a family of four, living in a two bedroom apartment with water, power and phone service would have sufficed.

I also could have opted to not reply at all. If you don't like my answers, don't ask your questions.

You’re entire premise is still too dependent on certain variables somehow remaining constant or dramatically jumping. None of the cities or states with higher minimum wages are at the level you describe. Even the new federal contractor minimum of $10.10/hour (highest state level is $9.32 in Washington) would probably still need to be at least doubled to reach your standards. You say suck it to the small businesses that go under (still assuming they can afford these wages), but say nothing about where the new jobs will open up for them. Or how people will spend more to support this wage. You can’t just say the 1% will bear the cost because they cannot be compelled to do so otherwise you’re just back at the sort of assistance programs you want to avoid being regularly used.

You will probably be the only person to read my treatise and say "you know, for a comment on a Disney forum, this...this is pretty vague. Nonetheless your comment really speaks to how effed we are as a nation. When the minimum wage was enacted it was at least close to the sort of wage a person could get by on. But as the disparity for wage owners increased and the minimum wage stagnated, and our economy was built on people not having to pay workers livable wages, now that it's getting to an unsustainable level, your sympathies lie with the people who made their business by exploiting workers as opposed to the workers. Volumes. This speaks volumes.

One day a serious not-crazy political candidate will run on an explicit platform of "tax the rich." If he's not assassinated before Election Day, he'll win in a landslide. Actually, he'd probably still win.

 

[GoofGoof]

You probably could have made that a lot shorter if you were not so intent on being snide and arguing against points not made so you can play high and mighty. Listing items like single earner in a family of four, living in a two bedroom apartment with water, power and phone service would have sufficed.

You’re entire premise is still too dependent on certain variables somehow remaining constant or dramatically jumping. None of the cities or states with higher minimum wages are at the level you describe. Even the new federal contractor minimum of $10.10/hour (highest state level is $9.32 in Washington) would probably still need to be at least doubled to reach your standards. You say suck it to the small businesses that go under (still assuming they can afford these wages), but say nothing about where the new jobs will open up for them. Or how people will spend more to support this wage. You can’t just say the 1% will bear the cost because they cannot be compelled to do so otherwise you’re just back at the sort of assistance programs you want to avoid being regularly used.

And this is why it's such a complex issue. If there was an easy answer someone would have done it already. There needs to be a mix of solutions, not just raising wages, but the other things needed are a lot more difficult to accomplish and also a lot more difficult to legislate. Raising minimum wage is as easy as getting X number of votes in the House and Senate. Enacting true change in our society, improving the education system, revamping the housing and public assistance systems are all much more difficult than just passing a bill to mandate a higher minimum wage. I do think the impact to small businesses and even larger ones and the economy in general should be considered when raising minimum wage, but like I said before there has to be a middle ground.

 

[slappy magoo]

You really think the independent tax accountant can afford to pay something like $20/hour? That's about what a car wash with hand dry costs in my area right now, so that business has gone under along with its jobs.

You're right, let the workers have to apply for SNAP benefits and housing assistance with all the other inadequately-paid workers whilst still insisting that Capitalism Works For Everyone! If you listen closely, you can hear the Sacagawea dollar coins trickling from the pockets of our 1% overlords into the coiffers of coffee baristas and Walmart greeters.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Off-topic (even moret

I also could have opted to not reply at all. If you don't like my answers, don't ask your questions.


You will probably be the only person to read my treatise and say "you know, for a comment on a Disney forum, this...this is pretty vague. Nonetheless your comment really speaks to how effed we are as a nation. When the minimum wage was enacted it was at least close to the sort of wage a person could get by on. But as the disparity for wage owners increased and the minimum wage stagnated, and our economy was built on people not having to pay workers livable wages, now that it's getting to an unsustainable level, your sympathies lie with the people who made their business by exploiting workers as opposed to the workers. Volumes. This speaks volumes.

One day a serious not-crazy political candidate will run on an explicit platform of "tax the rich." If he's not assassinated before Election Day, he'll win in a landslide. Actually, he'd probably still win.

Maybe you should go back and reread some of my posts. How is wanting to build more affordable housing so that the housing supply increases (meaning prices decrease) exploiting workers? How is wanting changes to zoning codes so that workers can live closer to their jobs exploitation? Or wanting more grocery stores built in poor neighborhoods? Or better street grids so people do not have to drive as far? Or more walkable streets? Or improving education?

Oh, and the rich are already being taxed and it has not stopped the issues of wage disparity or inflation from growing.

 

[flynnibus]

This is purely an emotional pitch.. not one intended to actually be worked out to be sustainable. It's one of those feel good platforms... Yeah.. lets do it! Hows it going to work? Don't bother me with details.. just do it! It will all be great!

 

[lazyboy97o]

And this is why it's such a complex issue. If there was an easy answer someone would have done it already. There needs to be a mix of solutions, not just raising wages, but the other things needed are a lot more difficult to accomplish and also a lot more difficult to legislate. Raising minimum wage is as easy as getting X number of votes in the House and Senate. Enacting true change in our society, improving the education system, revamping the housing and public assistance systems are all much more difficult than just passing a bill to mandate a higher minimum wage. I do think the impact to small businesses and even larger ones and the economy in general should be considered when raising minimum wage, but like I said before there has to be a middle ground.

You're right, it is not an easy fix, but nothing worth doing ever is. The gaps in cost of living between states and even cities has been mentioned repeatedly and I do not think that is not without reason. We probably do need to look more locally so that the context and circumstances can be better understood and addressed.

 

[Cesar R M]

Hello, just throwing my quick 2 cents.

The problem:

• Wages have not been increased (the minimum) for a long time.
• Wages have not being on par with inflation.
• Wages have actually been reduced or Employees to work more for less.

There is no easy solution for this other than gradually start raising the Wage or introduce better paying ones.

But of course, most Job owners do not want to slash their survivality.. their own rates, their own earnings or damage their market value in the stocks...
The whole thing goes downhill and converts in to a recipe for disaster...
People will then be desesperate and despite having jobs.. will get to poverty levels. (this is what happens in Mexico just fyi.. as basic salaries are worth crap since everything is so expensive... imagine receiving 600 USD A MONTH for work, and your most basic expenses already is 90% of your wage)

The funny part is.. the disconnections of the "big fish" with the reality...
These neoliberals or ultra conservative will always use these remarks to anyone who wants a fix for this problem of wages as a way to put the blame in the employee and not the employer....
remarks like the classic comebacks of "get a better job" or "Stop being a socialist".

What better jobs? Almost all new jobs are being set in the lower tier.. and higher paying jobs are 99% of the time already taken.
Its like medium and low level of workers are forced to cannibalize each other while the guys who owns 95% of the wealth just wiggle their fingers happily.

Now sum this problem of wages with the education trap.
you got the perfect "poor semi slave citizen factory" of the new world order... Where the only thing that is being produced mostly.. are semi slaves who cant get out of the trap.. and will be trapped forever.. And sometimes make their progeny.. stuck in the same cycle.

 

[Nubs70]

I am not sure where you have been the last 20 years or if you are not old enough to have realized what is going on. But inflation has happened! Cost of living has sky rocketed, the only thing that has not gone up is wages. Not just in the fast food industry but others as well. 20 years ago when people my age were starting out we were able to work full time and go to school part time. Some of my friends became teachers and their starting salaries were around $30,000. My SIL just started a teaching job this year, starting wages are exactly the same as they were 15 years ago. Same with my job, I used to decorate cakes at a local grocery store and started at $12/hour. I do not do that anymore but was talking to a young co worker who was doing the same job that I was doing 20 years ago, decorating cakes and she said they now work for $7/hour. And we all know the price of everything has gone up. Gas was 89cents a gallon 18 years ago, what is it now? The same exact apartment that I lived in and paid $285/month for is now going for $600(the same one!). Now tell me how salaries have stayed consistent with the cost of living. I truly do not understand how some people can possibly feel that the minimum wage is not set too low. Even if you were single with no kids you would not be able to afford to live off of minimum wage. It does not even cover rent/utilities and food let alone any "extras". There is no excuse for any company who has 1 employee(CEO) that makes millions a year just for themselves to not pay their employees a decent wage. PERIOD

You missed my point. I realize that there is an exceptional amount of inflation at the moment. The problem is that our brilliant leaders have change the method of calculate inflation to keep social security solvent. If inflation was calculated properly, wages would naturally increase organically along with prices thus maintaining purchasing power and reducing the wage gap.